niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: In Prometheus, Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway are scientific partners who are also in a relationship before the events of the movie. They discover the location of LV-223 and get the support from Weyland to fund a scientific trip. It is entirely coincidental that they are in a relationship, though of course that fact is used later in the plot. They are a couple on the ship because they are responsible for the expedition. The situation in Alien Covenant is entirely different. This is a colonization ship, a deliberate, one-way trip to settle on another planet. It is clearly deliberate that the ship is (entirely?) crewed by couples who are likely to want to settle and raise families in their destination. I don't think you can extrapolate the second example to say it is 'encouraged officially'. Its clearly encouraged, possibly a requirement for the people funding a colonization of another planet, but why would it be a general requirement? The trip in Prometheus and the later Nostromo isn't one-way and is largely crewed by single people.  <sep>  Q: Is it a coincidence that there are many couples boarding ships in Alien? A: The situation in Alien Covenant is entirely different. This is a colonization ship, a deliberate, one-way trip to settle on another planet  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I am wondering in the Alien universe, having a married couple to go onto the same trip is encouraged officially?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: In Prometheus, Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway are scientific partners who are also in a relationship before the events of the movie. They discover the location of LV-223 and get the support from Weyland to fund a scientific trip. It is entirely coincidental that they are in a relationship, though of course that fact is used later in the plot. They are a couple on the ship because they are responsible for the expedition. The situation in Alien Covenant is entirely different. This is a colonization ship, a deliberate, one-way trip to settle on another planet. It is clearly deliberate that the ship is (entirely?) crewed by couples who are likely to want to settle and raise families in their destination. I don't think you can extrapolate the second example to say it is 'encouraged officially'. Its clearly encouraged, possibly a requirement for the people funding a colonization of another planet, but why would it be a general requirement? The trip in Prometheus and the later Nostromo isn't one-way and is largely crewed by single people.  <sep>  Q: Is it a coincidence that there are many couples boarding ships in Alien? A: The situation in Alien Covenant is entirely different. This is a colonization ship, a deliberate, one-way trip to settle on another planet  Q: I am wondering in the Alien universe, having a married couple to go onto the same trip is encouraged officially? A: I don't think you can extrapolate the second example to say it is 'encouraged officially'. Its clearly encouraged  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the colonization ships mission officially?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: In Prometheus, Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway are scientific partners who are also in a relationship before the events of the movie. They discover the location of LV-223 and get the support from Weyland to fund a scientific trip. It is entirely coincidental that they are in a relationship, though of course that fact is used later in the plot. They are a couple on the ship because they are responsible for the expedition. The situation in Alien Covenant is entirely different. This is a colonization ship, a deliberate, one-way trip to settle on another planet. It is clearly deliberate that the ship is (entirely?) crewed by couples who are likely to want to settle and raise families in their destination. I don't think you can extrapolate the second example to say it is 'encouraged officially'. Its clearly encouraged, possibly a requirement for the people funding a colonization of another planet, but why would it be a general requirement? The trip in Prometheus and the later Nostromo isn't one-way and is largely crewed by single people.  <sep>  Q: Is it a coincidence that there are many couples boarding ships in Alien? A: The situation in Alien Covenant is entirely different. This is a colonization ship, a deliberate, one-way trip to settle on another planet  Q: I am wondering in the Alien universe, having a married couple to go onto the same trip is encouraged officially? A: I don't think you can extrapolate the second example to say it is 'encouraged officially'. Its clearly encouraged  Q: What is the colonization ships mission officially? A: Its clearly encouraged, possibly a requirement for the people funding a colonization of another plane  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is there anything else you could tell me about the ships in Alien?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: In Prometheus, Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway are scientific partners who are also in a relationship before the events of the movie. They discover the location of LV-223 and get the support from Weyland to fund a scientific trip. It is entirely coincidental that they are in a relationship, though of course that fact is used later in the plot. They are a couple on the ship because they are responsible for the expedition. The situation in Alien Covenant is entirely different. This is a colonization ship, a deliberate, one-way trip to settle on another planet. It is clearly deliberate that the ship is (entirely?) crewed by couples who are likely to want to settle and raise families in their destination. I don't think you can extrapolate the second example to say it is 'encouraged officially'. Its clearly encouraged, possibly a requirement for the people funding a colonization of another planet, but why would it be a general requirement? The trip in Prometheus and the later Nostromo isn't one-way and is largely crewed by single people.  <sep>  Q: Is it a coincidence that there are many couples boarding ships in Alien? A: The situation in Alien Covenant is entirely different. This is a colonization ship, a deliberate, one-way trip to settle on another planet  Q: I am wondering in the Alien universe, having a married couple to go onto the same trip is encouraged officially? A: I don't think you can extrapolate the second example to say it is 'encouraged officially'. Its clearly encouraged  Q: What is the colonization ships mission officially? A: Its clearly encouraged, possibly a requirement for the people funding a colonization of another plane  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How many couples per colonization ship?
Output: No
CONTEXT: For a while now Scream Factory (Shout Factory) has had distribution rights for Phantasm 2. Anchor Bay had the rights for 1,3, and 4 but the DVDs are out of print and AB didn't seem to do much with the movies beyond their initial DVD releases. Anchor Bay no longer holds the distribution rights; I have no idea who does. If Scream Factory ends up with the films that would be cause for celebration as they make an art out of re-releasing old horror films on Blu ray and making some fine collector sets...unfortunately all of my online searching hasn't turned up any info on who does hold the rights to the films. Fingers Crossed.  <sep>  Q: Why is Phantasm II available on Bluray while the other movies in this series are not?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: For a while now Scream Factory (Shout Factory) has had distribution rights for Phantasm 2. Anchor Bay had the rights for 1,3, and 4 but the DVDs are out of print and AB didn't seem to do much with the movies beyond their initial DVD releases. Anchor Bay no longer holds the distribution rights; I have no idea who does. If Scream Factory ends up with the films that would be cause for celebration as they make an art out of re-releasing old horror films on Blu ray and making some fine collector sets...unfortunately all of my online searching hasn't turned up any info on who does hold the rights to the films. Fingers Crossed.  <sep>  Q: Why is Phantasm II available on Bluray while the other movies in this series are not? A: Anchor Bay had the rights for 1,3, and 4 but the DVDs are out of print and AB didn't seem to do much with the movies beyond their initial DVD releases  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is that a different company than phantasm II
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: For a while now Scream Factory (Shout Factory) has had distribution rights for Phantasm 2. Anchor Bay had the rights for 1,3, and 4 but the DVDs are out of print and AB didn't seem to do much with the movies beyond their initial DVD releases. Anchor Bay no longer holds the distribution rights; I have no idea who does. If Scream Factory ends up with the films that would be cause for celebration as they make an art out of re-releasing old horror films on Blu ray and making some fine collector sets...unfortunately all of my online searching hasn't turned up any info on who does hold the rights to the films. Fingers Crossed.  <sep>  Q: Why is Phantasm II available on Bluray while the other movies in this series are not? A: Anchor Bay had the rights for 1,3, and 4 but the DVDs are out of print and AB didn't seem to do much with the movies beyond their initial DVD releases  Q: Is that a different company than phantasm II A: For a while now Scream Factory (Shout Factory) has had distribution rights for Phantasm 2  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why are they owned by different companies?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: For a while now Scream Factory (Shout Factory) has had distribution rights for Phantasm 2. Anchor Bay had the rights for 1,3, and 4 but the DVDs are out of print and AB didn't seem to do much with the movies beyond their initial DVD releases. Anchor Bay no longer holds the distribution rights; I have no idea who does. If Scream Factory ends up with the films that would be cause for celebration as they make an art out of re-releasing old horror films on Blu ray and making some fine collector sets...unfortunately all of my online searching hasn't turned up any info on who does hold the rights to the films. Fingers Crossed.  <sep>  Q: Why is Phantasm II available on Bluray while the other movies in this series are not? A: Anchor Bay had the rights for 1,3, and 4 but the DVDs are out of print and AB didn't seem to do much with the movies beyond their initial DVD releases  Q: Is that a different company than phantasm II A: For a while now Scream Factory (Shout Factory) has had distribution rights for Phantasm 2  Q: Why are they owned by different companies? A: If Scream Factory ends up with the films that would be cause for celebration as they make an art out of re-releasing old horror films on Blu ray and making some fine collector sets  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is included in the Criterion Collection
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: For a while now Scream Factory (Shout Factory) has had distribution rights for Phantasm 2. Anchor Bay had the rights for 1,3, and 4 but the DVDs are out of print and AB didn't seem to do much with the movies beyond their initial DVD releases. Anchor Bay no longer holds the distribution rights; I have no idea who does. If Scream Factory ends up with the films that would be cause for celebration as they make an art out of re-releasing old horror films on Blu ray and making some fine collector sets...unfortunately all of my online searching hasn't turned up any info on who does hold the rights to the films. Fingers Crossed.  <sep>  Q: Why is Phantasm II available on Bluray while the other movies in this series are not? A: Anchor Bay had the rights for 1,3, and 4 but the DVDs are out of print and AB didn't seem to do much with the movies beyond their initial DVD releases  Q: Is that a different company than phantasm II A: For a while now Scream Factory (Shout Factory) has had distribution rights for Phantasm 2  Q: Why are they owned by different companies? A: If Scream Factory ends up with the films that would be cause for celebration as they make an art out of re-releasing old horror films on Blu ray and making some fine collector sets  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How many are in the series?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations.  <sep>  Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations.  <sep>  Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations.  <sep>  Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them  Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root
Output: No
CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations.  <sep>  Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them  Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: In the end when Vidal follows Ofelia to the labyrinth is Ofelia talking to the faun?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations.  <sep>  Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them  Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is going on in Pan's Labyrinth?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Louise has a unique understanding of the language. Many of the scientists have worked out some of the vocabulary and seem to have made some progress in communication. But Louise has immersed herself more in the language than the others. But the implications are not apparent until very late. In a final splurge of communication, done as the scientists start to panic about the reaction of the other nations to the partial communications they have interpreted, the aliens send a very rich message: not one word but a whole screenful of words. Nobody can make sense of it until Louise has a moment of insight and can read it all and get the point of it. Only at this moment does the full intent of the language have an effect on her: and when it does it rewrites her sense of time. She then uses this knowledge of the future to avert a potential catastrophe. We only see the implications of this in the postscript (which may be actually her memory of the future) where many of the players meet for the first time at a celebration of her book on the language and one of them triggers her memory of what she did to talk down the hostility. The key point is that she is the first person to completely grasp the alien language and therefore the first to experience its ability to undo her brain's sense of linear time.  <sep>  Q: Why was Louise the only one who advances her mind? A: The key point is that she is the first person to completely grasp the alien language and therefore the first to experience its ability to undo her brain's sense of linear time  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: was this a good movie?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Different question: Why shouldn't it be the case, i.e. have the same timespan per incarnation? Don't forget that all these three regenerations weren't triggered due to any natural/inherent reason (like dieing of old age). The ninth Doctor absorbed the vortex energy from Rose and the tenth Doctor absorbed the radiation from that completely weird and odd failsafe containment thingy. Neither of them regenerated by choice. Also keep in mind that timespans are hardly constant when comparing single episodes. While this is especially true for time travelling stuff, it's also true for pretty much any other TV series or movie (maybe except 24). For example, take episodes such as Rose or Aliens of London. The story happening in those essentially covers a day or two each. Compare this to episodes with far longer timespans, e.g. The Impossible Astronaut and the sequel: Those cover several months. Or, if you want it even more time bending: Blink happens on a single day for the audience as well as for the characters depicted in the present. However, for the Doctor (and Martha) obviously months pass.  <sep>  Q: Why did the 11th doctor live so long compared with his predecessors?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Different question: Why shouldn't it be the case, i.e. have the same timespan per incarnation? Don't forget that all these three regenerations weren't triggered due to any natural/inherent reason (like dieing of old age). The ninth Doctor absorbed the vortex energy from Rose and the tenth Doctor absorbed the radiation from that completely weird and odd failsafe containment thingy. Neither of them regenerated by choice. Also keep in mind that timespans are hardly constant when comparing single episodes. While this is especially true for time travelling stuff, it's also true for pretty much any other TV series or movie (maybe except 24). For example, take episodes such as Rose or Aliens of London. The story happening in those essentially covers a day or two each. Compare this to episodes with far longer timespans, e.g. The Impossible Astronaut and the sequel: Those cover several months. Or, if you want it even more time bending: Blink happens on a single day for the audience as well as for the characters depicted in the present. However, for the Doctor (and Martha) obviously months pass.  <sep>  Q: Why did the 11th doctor live so long compared with his predecessors? A: Don't forget that all these three regenerations weren't triggered due to any natural/inherent reason (like dieing of old age  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what do you think triggered them the most?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Of course this changes from country to country, but generally speaking it's not illegal to film on the streets, since it's a public area. Most car scenes are recorded with chroma just for pratical reasons. In a professional production you look for "quality" and you can achieve it only if you have control. It's all about control. With a studio setting you get full control of the lights, the movements, etc. in one word, the scene. And of course, you minimize the hitches that can occurs in the real world (also safety concers). However you should film outdoor shots to enrich and give credibility to your scene.  <sep>  Q: Why are most scenes in a car recorded with chroma?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Of course this changes from country to country, but generally speaking it's not illegal to film on the streets, since it's a public area. Most car scenes are recorded with chroma just for pratical reasons. In a professional production you look for "quality" and you can achieve it only if you have control. It's all about control. With a studio setting you get full control of the lights, the movements, etc. in one word, the scene. And of course, you minimize the hitches that can occurs in the real world (also safety concers). However you should film outdoor shots to enrich and give credibility to your scene.  <sep>  Q: Why are most scenes in a car recorded with chroma? A: Most car scenes are recorded with chroma just for pratical reasons  Q: What reasons are those? A: In a professional production you look for "quality" and you can achieve it only if you have control. It's all about control  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it illegal to film while driving in a public place?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Of course this changes from country to country, but generally speaking it's not illegal to film on the streets, since it's a public area. Most car scenes are recorded with chroma just for pratical reasons. In a professional production you look for "quality" and you can achieve it only if you have control. It's all about control. With a studio setting you get full control of the lights, the movements, etc. in one word, the scene. And of course, you minimize the hitches that can occurs in the real world (also safety concers). However you should film outdoor shots to enrich and give credibility to your scene.  <sep>  Q: Why are most scenes in a car recorded with chroma? A: Most car scenes are recorded with chroma just for pratical reasons  Q: What reasons are those? A: In a professional production you look for "quality" and you can achieve it only if you have control. It's all about control  Q: Is it illegal to film while driving in a public place? A: Of course this changes from country to country, but generally speaking it's not illegal to film on the streets, since it's a public area  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are there any safety concerns when filming?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Of course this changes from country to country, but generally speaking it's not illegal to film on the streets, since it's a public area. Most car scenes are recorded with chroma just for pratical reasons. In a professional production you look for "quality" and you can achieve it only if you have control. It's all about control. With a studio setting you get full control of the lights, the movements, etc. in one word, the scene. And of course, you minimize the hitches that can occurs in the real world (also safety concers). However you should film outdoor shots to enrich and give credibility to your scene.  <sep>  Q: Why are most scenes in a car recorded with chroma? A: Most car scenes are recorded with chroma just for pratical reasons  Q: What reasons are those? A: In a professional production you look for "quality" and you can achieve it only if you have control. It's all about control  Q: Is it illegal to film while driving in a public place? A: Of course this changes from country to country, but generally speaking it's not illegal to film on the streets, since it's a public area  Q: Are there any safety concerns when filming? A: you minimize the hitches that can occurs in the real world (also safety concers  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is there anything else you can tell me on this subject?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Of course this changes from country to country, but generally speaking it's not illegal to film on the streets, since it's a public area. Most car scenes are recorded with chroma just for pratical reasons. In a professional production you look for "quality" and you can achieve it only if you have control. It's all about control. With a studio setting you get full control of the lights, the movements, etc. in one word, the scene. And of course, you minimize the hitches that can occurs in the real world (also safety concers). However you should film outdoor shots to enrich and give credibility to your scene.  <sep>  Q: Why are most scenes in a car recorded with chroma? A: Most car scenes are recorded with chroma just for pratical reasons  Q: What reasons are those? A: In a professional production you look for "quality" and you can achieve it only if you have control. It's all about control  Q: Is it illegal to film while driving in a public place? A: Of course this changes from country to country, but generally speaking it's not illegal to film on the streets, since it's a public area  Q: Are there any safety concerns when filming? A: you minimize the hitches that can occurs in the real world (also safety concers  Q: Is there anything else you can tell me on this subject? A: you should film outdoor shots to enrich and give credibility to your scene  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Ok sure, we'll what about the actors, any reasons why you wouldn't want them driving?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It's hard to say because we really don't know what he's been doing exactly or why. He could be waiting for winter as he needs a way around/through the wall and waiting for the ocean near Eastwatch to freeze would allow him to walk around the wall. Or now that he "marked" Bran he is going to be able to break the magic barrier of the wall the same way he broke the barrier around the 3 eyed raven's cave. But a likely explanation is that him and his army simply move at the speed of plot. So he hasn't made it there because it's not time for that in the story and it's just a plot hole.  <sep>  Q: How is the night king not at the wall yet?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It's hard to say because we really don't know what he's been doing exactly or why. He could be waiting for winter as he needs a way around/through the wall and waiting for the ocean near Eastwatch to freeze would allow him to walk around the wall. Or now that he "marked" Bran he is going to be able to break the magic barrier of the wall the same way he broke the barrier around the 3 eyed raven's cave. But a likely explanation is that him and his army simply move at the speed of plot. So he hasn't made it there because it's not time for that in the story and it's just a plot hole.  <sep>  Q: How is the night king not at the wall yet? A: It's hard to say because we really don't know what he's been doing exactly or why  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: True. It takes a long time for any background information to really come to light.
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It's hard to say because we really don't know what he's been doing exactly or why. He could be waiting for winter as he needs a way around/through the wall and waiting for the ocean near Eastwatch to freeze would allow him to walk around the wall. Or now that he "marked" Bran he is going to be able to break the magic barrier of the wall the same way he broke the barrier around the 3 eyed raven's cave. But a likely explanation is that him and his army simply move at the speed of plot. So he hasn't made it there because it's not time for that in the story and it's just a plot hole.  <sep>  Q: How is the night king not at the wall yet? A: It's hard to say because we really don't know what he's been doing exactly or why  Q: True. It takes a long time for any background information to really come to light. A: But a likely explanation is that him and his army simply move at the speed of plot. So he hasn't made it there because it's not time for that in the story and it's just a plot hole  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Right. Are all white walkers from north of the wall?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It's hard to say because we really don't know what he's been doing exactly or why. He could be waiting for winter as he needs a way around/through the wall and waiting for the ocean near Eastwatch to freeze would allow him to walk around the wall. Or now that he "marked" Bran he is going to be able to break the magic barrier of the wall the same way he broke the barrier around the 3 eyed raven's cave. But a likely explanation is that him and his army simply move at the speed of plot. So he hasn't made it there because it's not time for that in the story and it's just a plot hole.  <sep>  Q: How is the night king not at the wall yet? A: It's hard to say because we really don't know what he's been doing exactly or why  Q: True. It takes a long time for any background information to really come to light. A: But a likely explanation is that him and his army simply move at the speed of plot. So he hasn't made it there because it's not time for that in the story and it's just a plot hole  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: They move really slow. Does Bran move faster than them when he is north of the wall, because he pretty slow too?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It's hard to say because we really don't know what he's been doing exactly or why. He could be waiting for winter as he needs a way around/through the wall and waiting for the ocean near Eastwatch to freeze would allow him to walk around the wall. Or now that he "marked" Bran he is going to be able to break the magic barrier of the wall the same way he broke the barrier around the 3 eyed raven's cave. But a likely explanation is that him and his army simply move at the speed of plot. So he hasn't made it there because it's not time for that in the story and it's just a plot hole.  <sep>  Q: How is the night king not at the wall yet? A: It's hard to say because we really don't know what he's been doing exactly or why  Q: True. It takes a long time for any background information to really come to light. A: But a likely explanation is that him and his army simply move at the speed of plot. So he hasn't made it there because it's not time for that in the story and it's just a plot hole  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do the whitewalkers split up or stay together?
Output: No
CONTEXT: IMO, it's simply due to the fact that film is a visual medium. Harry's disguise made every sense, and so he had it in the book (where you can stuff loads of details with minor explanations), but it was not overly important for the scene. Probably because of that, taking the time (and some special effects money) to show it and explain it was avoided. Also, having a different actor being Harry would be distracting for some of the viewers, even when explained, and it would also probably feel old (as in "we've seen this trick, why repeat it?"). So, unless there is a real need - from the perspective of the scene, not the plot - for Harry to be disguised, he's not.  <sep>  Q: Why did Harry not use Polyjuice Potion at the wedding of Bill and Fleur?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: IMO, it's simply due to the fact that film is a visual medium. Harry's disguise made every sense, and so he had it in the book (where you can stuff loads of details with minor explanations), but it was not overly important for the scene. Probably because of that, taking the time (and some special effects money) to show it and explain it was avoided. Also, having a different actor being Harry would be distracting for some of the viewers, even when explained, and it would also probably feel old (as in "we've seen this trick, why repeat it?"). So, unless there is a real need - from the perspective of the scene, not the plot - for Harry to be disguised, he's not.  <sep>  Q: Why did Harry not use Polyjuice Potion at the wedding of Bill and Fleur? A: Harry's disguise made every sense, and so he had it in the book (where you can stuff loads of details with minor explanations), but it was not overly important for the scene  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did Harry take any other measures to protect himself?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: IMO, it's simply due to the fact that film is a visual medium. Harry's disguise made every sense, and so he had it in the book (where you can stuff loads of details with minor explanations), but it was not overly important for the scene. Probably because of that, taking the time (and some special effects money) to show it and explain it was avoided. Also, having a different actor being Harry would be distracting for some of the viewers, even when explained, and it would also probably feel old (as in "we've seen this trick, why repeat it?"). So, unless there is a real need - from the perspective of the scene, not the plot - for Harry to be disguised, he's not.  <sep>  Q: Why did Harry not use Polyjuice Potion at the wedding of Bill and Fleur? A: Harry's disguise made every sense, and so he had it in the book (where you can stuff loads of details with minor explanations), but it was not overly important for the scene  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Were there death eaters at the wedding?
Output: No
CONTEXT: IMO, it's simply due to the fact that film is a visual medium. Harry's disguise made every sense, and so he had it in the book (where you can stuff loads of details with minor explanations), but it was not overly important for the scene. Probably because of that, taking the time (and some special effects money) to show it and explain it was avoided. Also, having a different actor being Harry would be distracting for some of the viewers, even when explained, and it would also probably feel old (as in "we've seen this trick, why repeat it?"). So, unless there is a real need - from the perspective of the scene, not the plot - for Harry to be disguised, he's not.  <sep>  Q: Why did Harry not use Polyjuice Potion at the wedding of Bill and Fleur? A: Harry's disguise made every sense, and so he had it in the book (where you can stuff loads of details with minor explanations), but it was not overly important for the scene  Q: Did Harry take any other measures to protect himself? A: Harry's disguise made every sense  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who was harry disguised as in the book?
Output: No
CONTEXT: When cooper got pulled in Gargantua and ejected before spacecraft got destroyed, he got stuck in some extra dimension where time is non-linear. It's like a space where he can communicate with her daughter on earth through gravity. That's why Murph thought it was a ghost. So he can communicate with past time Murph because of the non-linear time structure of that extra dimension. This extra dimension space can be treated as parallel plane which can assess multiple time frames of earth.  <sep>  Q: How can Cooper communicate with his daughter before the time he went to space?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: When cooper got pulled in Gargantua and ejected before spacecraft got destroyed, he got stuck in some extra dimension where time is non-linear. It's like a space where he can communicate with her daughter on earth through gravity. That's why Murph thought it was a ghost. So he can communicate with past time Murph because of the non-linear time structure of that extra dimension. This extra dimension space can be treated as parallel plane which can assess multiple time frames of earth.  <sep>  Q: How can Cooper communicate with his daughter before the time he went to space? A: When cooper got pulled in Gargantua and ejected before spacecraft got destroyed, he got stuck in some extra dimension where time is non-linear  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So was he still alive or was he a ghost?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: When cooper got pulled in Gargantua and ejected before spacecraft got destroyed, he got stuck in some extra dimension where time is non-linear. It's like a space where he can communicate with her daughter on earth through gravity. That's why Murph thought it was a ghost. So he can communicate with past time Murph because of the non-linear time structure of that extra dimension. This extra dimension space can be treated as parallel plane which can assess multiple time frames of earth.  <sep>  Q: How can Cooper communicate with his daughter before the time he went to space? A: When cooper got pulled in Gargantua and ejected before spacecraft got destroyed, he got stuck in some extra dimension where time is non-linear  Q: So was he still alive or was he a ghost? A: It's like a space where he can communicate with her daughter on earth through gravity. That's why Murph thought it was a ghost  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How could he communicate to his daughter before he goes into space? I didn't get the logic of that part.
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: When cooper got pulled in Gargantua and ejected before spacecraft got destroyed, he got stuck in some extra dimension where time is non-linear. It's like a space where he can communicate with her daughter on earth through gravity. That's why Murph thought it was a ghost. So he can communicate with past time Murph because of the non-linear time structure of that extra dimension. This extra dimension space can be treated as parallel plane which can assess multiple time frames of earth.  <sep>  Q: How can Cooper communicate with his daughter before the time he went to space? A: When cooper got pulled in Gargantua and ejected before spacecraft got destroyed, he got stuck in some extra dimension where time is non-linear  Q: So was he still alive or was he a ghost? A: It's like a space where he can communicate with her daughter on earth through gravity. That's why Murph thought it was a ghost  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was he able to help Murph when he was communicating via gravity?
Output: No
CONTEXT: When cooper got pulled in Gargantua and ejected before spacecraft got destroyed, he got stuck in some extra dimension where time is non-linear. It's like a space where he can communicate with her daughter on earth through gravity. That's why Murph thought it was a ghost. So he can communicate with past time Murph because of the non-linear time structure of that extra dimension. This extra dimension space can be treated as parallel plane which can assess multiple time frames of earth.  <sep>  Q: How can Cooper communicate with his daughter before the time he went to space? A: When cooper got pulled in Gargantua and ejected before spacecraft got destroyed, he got stuck in some extra dimension where time is non-linear  Q: So was he still alive or was he a ghost? A: It's like a space where he can communicate with her daughter on earth through gravity. That's why Murph thought it was a ghost  Q: How could he communicate to his daughter before he goes into space? I didn't get the logic of that part. A: It's like a space where he can communicate with her daughter on earth through gravity  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did cooper know that Muph would know it was him?
Output: No
CONTEXT: That is just a simple plot twist, or character development. The Harry Potter series is a pretty straight forward tale of good vs evil, and does not deviate much from that. A twist ending would be Harry becoming a worse villain than Voldy, or Voldy winning and everybody dying. Or that it was all a dream of Harry, who's still living under the crawlspace.  <sep>  Q: Is a twist ending that occurs at the end of a series of films still called a twist ending?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: That is just a simple plot twist, or character development. The Harry Potter series is a pretty straight forward tale of good vs evil, and does not deviate much from that. A twist ending would be Harry becoming a worse villain than Voldy, or Voldy winning and everybody dying. Or that it was all a dream of Harry, who's still living under the crawlspace.  <sep>  Q: Is a twist ending that occurs at the end of a series of films still called a twist ending? A: A twist ending would be Harry becoming a worse villain than Voldy, or Voldy winning and everybody dying  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are you talking about Harry Potter?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: That is just a simple plot twist, or character development. The Harry Potter series is a pretty straight forward tale of good vs evil, and does not deviate much from that. A twist ending would be Harry becoming a worse villain than Voldy, or Voldy winning and everybody dying. Or that it was all a dream of Harry, who's still living under the crawlspace.  <sep>  Q: Is a twist ending that occurs at the end of a series of films still called a twist ending? A: A twist ending would be Harry becoming a worse villain than Voldy, or Voldy winning and everybody dying  Q: Are you talking about Harry Potter? A: That is just a simple plot twist, or character development  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is Harry a good guy or bad guy in the story?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: That is just a simple plot twist, or character development. The Harry Potter series is a pretty straight forward tale of good vs evil, and does not deviate much from that. A twist ending would be Harry becoming a worse villain than Voldy, or Voldy winning and everybody dying. Or that it was all a dream of Harry, who's still living under the crawlspace.  <sep>  Q: Is a twist ending that occurs at the end of a series of films still called a twist ending? A: A twist ending would be Harry becoming a worse villain than Voldy, or Voldy winning and everybody dying  Q: Are you talking about Harry Potter? A: That is just a simple plot twist, or character development  Q: Is Harry a good guy or bad guy in the story? A: The Harry Potter series is a pretty straight forward tale of good vs evil, and does not deviate much from that  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is Snape seen as a bad guy at first in the movie?
Output: No
CONTEXT: That is just a simple plot twist, or character development. The Harry Potter series is a pretty straight forward tale of good vs evil, and does not deviate much from that. A twist ending would be Harry becoming a worse villain than Voldy, or Voldy winning and everybody dying. Or that it was all a dream of Harry, who's still living under the crawlspace.  <sep>  Q: Is a twist ending that occurs at the end of a series of films still called a twist ending? A: A twist ending would be Harry becoming a worse villain than Voldy, or Voldy winning and everybody dying  Q: Are you talking about Harry Potter? A: That is just a simple plot twist, or character development  Q: Is Harry a good guy or bad guy in the story? A: The Harry Potter series is a pretty straight forward tale of good vs evil, and does not deviate much from that  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can you tell me anything else about the movie, it sounds interesting?
Output: No
CONTEXT: That is just a simple plot twist, or character development. The Harry Potter series is a pretty straight forward tale of good vs evil, and does not deviate much from that. A twist ending would be Harry becoming a worse villain than Voldy, or Voldy winning and everybody dying. Or that it was all a dream of Harry, who's still living under the crawlspace.  <sep>  Q: Is a twist ending that occurs at the end of a series of films still called a twist ending? A: A twist ending would be Harry becoming a worse villain than Voldy, or Voldy winning and everybody dying  Q: Are you talking about Harry Potter? A: That is just a simple plot twist, or character development  Q: Is Harry a good guy or bad guy in the story? A: The Harry Potter series is a pretty straight forward tale of good vs evil, and does not deviate much from that  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are there any other movies you can recommend with twist endings?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Her ability to levitate herself comes out of nowhere in the movie, I assume to enhance her dramatic entrance in the final scene. So there's no real explanation for why she doesn't ever try to do it earlier. In particular, there were times when levitating herself would have been very useful, such as when she needed Vision to fly her out of the train car as Slokovia fell. However, Wanda's major character development during the course of the movie is that she starts out, under Ultron's guidance, as a misguided villain, until her time spend with the rest of the Avengers eventually redeems her. You will notice that, during the first half of the movie, she almost exclusively uses her mental manipulation power. It's only after she starts spending time with people like Captain America and Hawkeye that she starts to embrace her other powers, like stopping the train, or using hex-bolts on Ultron clones. It seems likely that the Avengers have been helping her explore her abilities, and become better at using them. It may be as simple as her not knowing she could levitate until someone else convinced her to try.  <sep>  Q: Hello, if Scarlet Witch of MCU has the ability to fly, why didn't she attempt to fly earlier?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Her ability to levitate herself comes out of nowhere in the movie, I assume to enhance her dramatic entrance in the final scene. So there's no real explanation for why she doesn't ever try to do it earlier. In particular, there were times when levitating herself would have been very useful, such as when she needed Vision to fly her out of the train car as Slokovia fell. However, Wanda's major character development during the course of the movie is that she starts out, under Ultron's guidance, as a misguided villain, until her time spend with the rest of the Avengers eventually redeems her. You will notice that, during the first half of the movie, she almost exclusively uses her mental manipulation power. It's only after she starts spending time with people like Captain America and Hawkeye that she starts to embrace her other powers, like stopping the train, or using hex-bolts on Ultron clones. It seems likely that the Avengers have been helping her explore her abilities, and become better at using them. It may be as simple as her not knowing she could levitate until someone else convinced her to try.  <sep>  Q: Hello, if Scarlet Witch of MCU has the ability to fly, why didn't she attempt to fly earlier? A: I assume to enhance her dramatic entrance in the final scene. So there's no real explanation for why she doesn't ever try to do it earlier  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does she levitate in Avengers Age of Ultron?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Her ability to levitate herself comes out of nowhere in the movie, I assume to enhance her dramatic entrance in the final scene. So there's no real explanation for why she doesn't ever try to do it earlier. In particular, there were times when levitating herself would have been very useful, such as when she needed Vision to fly her out of the train car as Slokovia fell. However, Wanda's major character development during the course of the movie is that she starts out, under Ultron's guidance, as a misguided villain, until her time spend with the rest of the Avengers eventually redeems her. You will notice that, during the first half of the movie, she almost exclusively uses her mental manipulation power. It's only after she starts spending time with people like Captain America and Hawkeye that she starts to embrace her other powers, like stopping the train, or using hex-bolts on Ultron clones. It seems likely that the Avengers have been helping her explore her abilities, and become better at using them. It may be as simple as her not knowing she could levitate until someone else convinced her to try.  <sep>  Q: Hello, if Scarlet Witch of MCU has the ability to fly, why didn't she attempt to fly earlier? A: I assume to enhance her dramatic entrance in the final scene. So there's no real explanation for why she doesn't ever try to do it earlier  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: She did fly in the comics right?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Being choked unconscious can result in short term memory loss. It is likely that Harvey Dent may not remember Rachel asking or the question. Or the assault. Choking someone out doesn't knock them out for very long either. It is possible Batman drugged Dent inside the panic room and then took him home later and he woke up in his own bed.  <sep>  Q: Did Harvey Dent know that it was Bruce Wayne who locked him up?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Being choked unconscious can result in short term memory loss. It is likely that Harvey Dent may not remember Rachel asking or the question. Or the assault. Choking someone out doesn't knock them out for very long either. It is possible Batman drugged Dent inside the panic room and then took him home later and he woke up in his own bed.  <sep>  Q: Did Harvey Dent know that it was Bruce Wayne who locked him up? A: It is likely that Harvey Dent may not remember Rachel asking or the question  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who did Harvey think locked him up?
Output: Yes